Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 544 F.3d 8 - Ricci v. Patrick

Ricci v. Patrick’s Empirical Analysis

544 F.3d 8 · 2008

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
September 2014
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America · Milliken v. Bradley · Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail · Tommy Olmstead Commissioner Georgia Department of Human Resourcess v. L C Jonathan Zimring · Frew on Behalf of Her Daughter Frew et al. v. Hawkins Commissioner Texas Health and Human Services Commission et al.

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “7. a. If the defendants substantially fail to provide a state ISP process in compliance with this Order, or if there is a systemic failure to provide services to class members as described in this Order, the plaintiffs may seek enforcement of the Order pursuant to this paragraph. Individual ISP disputes shall be enforced solely through the state ISP process. c. Should the plaintiff class believe that the defendants are not in substantial compliance with this Order with regard to systemic issues, plaintiffs may seek to reopen this case and to restore this case to the active docket and to move for enforcement of this Order only after the following steps have occurred: (1) plaintiffs have given written notice to defendants of the alleged non-compliance, including the facts alleged and the provision of the Order involved; (2) defendants have been provided with 30 days to review and respond to plaintiffs’ notice, and to inform plaintiffs of any proposed plan of correction; (3) plaintiffs and defendants (or their respective counsel) have met personally at least twice to discuss and seek to resolve any remaining dispute under the notice. The court shall have jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of this Order pursuant to this paragraph, which shall be the exclusive means of enforcing this Order.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “pursuant to a consent decree whose terms” were”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.